A response to narratives and counter-narratives

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Australian Journal of Political Science Pub Date : 2023-02-07 DOI:10.1080/10361146.2023.2166812
S. Jackson
{"title":"A response to narratives and counter-narratives","authors":"S. Jackson","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2023.2166812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Existing narratives surrounding the failure of the CPRS in 2009 have particularly centred on the nature of ALP negotiations with other parties. The article discusses reasonably effectively the strong bipartisan nature of many of the votes taken within the Senate, and when dissecting the events leading to the defeat of the CPRS Bill seeks to suggest that the often-bipartisan nature of voting is indicative of the normality of negotiations over the CPRS. However, this requires some unpacking, and does not take into account the reality of the vote on the day and the structure of bipartisanship. It also leaves aside the at-times virulent campaign by leading members within the Australian Labor Party and the reality of parliamentary negotiations. I will consider those issues here.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"58 1","pages":"230 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2023.2166812","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Existing narratives surrounding the failure of the CPRS in 2009 have particularly centred on the nature of ALP negotiations with other parties. The article discusses reasonably effectively the strong bipartisan nature of many of the votes taken within the Senate, and when dissecting the events leading to the defeat of the CPRS Bill seeks to suggest that the often-bipartisan nature of voting is indicative of the normality of negotiations over the CPRS. However, this requires some unpacking, and does not take into account the reality of the vote on the day and the structure of bipartisanship. It also leaves aside the at-times virulent campaign by leading members within the Australian Labor Party and the reality of parliamentary negotiations. I will consider those issues here.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对叙事和反叙事的回应
围绕2009年CPRS失败的现有叙述尤其集中在工党与其他政党谈判的性质上。本文合理有效地讨论了参议院内许多投票的强烈两党性质,并在剖析导致CPRS法案失败的事件时,试图表明投票的两党性质通常表明了CPRS谈判的常态。然而,这需要一些拆解,并且没有考虑到当天投票的现实和两党合作的结构。它还不考虑澳大利亚工党(Australian Labor Party)内部领导成员时而激烈的竞选活动,也不考虑议会谈判的现实。我将在这里考虑这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Political Science is the official journal of the Australian Political Studies Association. The editorial team of the Journal includes a range of Australian and overseas specialists covering the major subdisciplines of political science. We publish articles of high quality at the cutting edge of the discipline, characterised by conceptual clarity, methodological rigour, substantive interest, theoretical coherence, broad appeal, originality and insight.
期刊最新文献
Path contingency: advancing a spatial-institutionalist perspective on decision pathways for disaster risk governance ‘The Australian way’: the gendered and racial logics of Scott Morrison’s climate change narratives Religious freedom for whom? How conservative Christianity erodes the religious freedom of those it seeks to discriminate against Free speech, religious freedom and vilification in Australia Bridging the expectation gap: a survey of Australian PhD candidates and supervisors in politics and international relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1